Re: [dhcwg] IPR statement related to draft-ietf-dhc-subscriber-id-X.txt

[Mark Stapp <[e-mail]>]

I'd like to speak up in favor of this draft. (That shouldn't be surprising, 
since I'm an author.)

The technique described in the draft seems obvious and non-novel to me. I 
can't imagine that there is intellectual property there, and I'd be happy 
to offer my expert (well, enthusiastic amateur, at least) opinion about 
that to anyone who cares to ask. in DHCP, we've been shipping information 
that identifies clients around since forever, in the mac, client-id, 
host-name, fqdn, and so forth options. someone who thinks they've 
'invented' that should think hard before going after anyone who uses such 
information in DHCP messages.

The merits of the packetfront IP claims aside, I do believe that there will 
be users of relay information that is different from the remote-id and 
circuit-id, or who need information in addition to those suboptions. If a 
standard suboption isn't available, implementors will do just what Bernie 
Volz suggested: they'll pick random suboptions and use them. That seems 
much less desirable to me. We've usually tried, as a group, to allocate 
well-known option and suboption numbers with clearly described data for 
specific purposes. That improves the lives of implementors, vendors, and 
customers. I'd like to see us move forward and do the same here.

years of history with some vendors' IPR practices have given us confidence 
that their policies are defensive, and we have been able to proceed with 
standardization that co-exists with intellectual property. we don't have 
any history with packetfront's IPR claims, unlike those of some other 
vendors. it would be nice if they'd make their intentions more clear.

-- Mark

At 06:43 PM 2/5/2004 -0500, Ralph Droms wrote:
>PacketFront has issued a modified IPR statement about
>draft-ietf-dhc-subscriber-id-X.txt (publication on
>http://www.ietf.org/ipr.html is pending):
>
>     PacketFront Sweden AB would like to update its IPR notification from
>     April 17, 2003.
>
>     The document draft-ietf-dhc-subscriber-id-X.txt describes technology or
>     solutions for which PacketFront has related patents or patent 
> applications
>     pending.
>
>     If a document based on this draft becomes an IETF standard PacketFront is
>     prepared to license, on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms, any
>     related PacketFront patents to the extent required to comply with
>     the standard.
>
>     Sweden AB
>
>     Mats E. Jonsson
>
>     Deputy CEO
>
>This new IPR statement is compatible with the text in section 10.3.2(C)
>of RFC 2026, and with similar IPRs on other IETF documents.  Are there
>any objections now to resuming consideration of
>draft-ietf-dhc-subscriber-id-05.txt as a Proposed Standard?
>
>- RAlph
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>dhcwg mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg


_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg